PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendant?s motion for
summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant
to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff first claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for a violation of the
Whistleblower?s Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq. A trial court?s ruling on a motion
for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617
NW2d 351 (2000).
The WPA prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an
employee with respect to his employment ?because the employee . . . reports or is about to
report, verbally or in writing, a violation or suspected violation of a law or regulation or rule
promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States
to a public body . . . .? MCL 15.362. The elements of a cause of action under the WPA are ?(1)
the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity as defined by the act, (2) the plaintiff was
discharged or discriminated against, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected
activity and the discharge or adverse employment action.? West v General Motors Corp, 469
Mich 177, 183-184; 665 NW2d 468 (2003).
There appears to be no dispute that plaintiff was an employee and defendant was an
employer under the act. See MCL 15.361(1)(a) and (1)(b). When plaintiff reported a coworker?s
misconduct to the court administrator, he made a report to a public body. MCL 15.361(1)(d)(vi).
The WPA ?protects reports made against a co-worker, not just an employer.? Trepanier v Nat?l
Amusements, Inc, 250 Mich App 578, 584; 649 NW2d 754 (2002).

-2-
Protected activity under the WPA includes reporting a violation of a law or a violation of
a regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to a law of this state, a political subdivision of this
state, or the United States. MCL 15.362; Roulston v Tendercare (Michigan), Inc, 239 Mich App
270, 279; 608 NW2d 525 (2000). Plaintiff reported that a coworker violated defendant?s work
rules concerning proper conduct, which appear to be patterned after Canon 3, Rule (A)(3), of the
Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. Plaintiff thus contends that the work rules constitute ?a rule
or regulation imposed by this State.? We note that the Code of Judicial Conduct is a set of
standards and rules for the ethical conduct of judges promulgated by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court is neither the state nor the United States. Whether the Supreme Court constitutes
a political subdivision of the state and whether the Code of Judicial Conduct otherwise
constitutes a law, rule, or regulation within the meaning of MCL 15.362 are questions plaintiff
has not adequately addressed. Because plaintiff has failed to address adequately an issue that
must necessarily be reached to reverse the trial court?s order, he is not entitled to relief. FMB-
First Michigan Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich App 711, 717; 591 NW2d 676 (1998); Sargent v
Browning-Ferris Indus, 167 Mich App 29, 37; 421 NW2d 563 (1998); Roberts & Son
Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Dev Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987).
Plaintiff next asserts that he had a valid claim for retaliatory discharge under the Elliott-
Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2701(a). This issue has not been preserved for appeal because
plaintiff did not include it in his statement of questions presented on appeal. Busch v Holmes,
256 Mich App 4, 12; 662 NW2d 64 (2003). Moreover, the issue is deemed abandoned because
plaintiff has not adequately briefed its merits. FMB-First Michigan, supra at 717.
Plaintiff next asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint because he had
viable causes of action for discrimination and violation of his First Amendment rights. The
nature of the claim is not clearly presented, but appears to be that his discharge and
discriminatory treatment violated public policy because they were carried out in retaliation for
plaintiff?s having exercised his First Amendment rights. Because plaintiff has not adequately
briefed the merits of the claim, it is deemed abandoned. Id. ?An appellant may not merely
announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his
claims.? Green Oak Twp v Munzel, 255 Mich App 235, 244; 661 NW2d 243 (2003).
Plaintiff?s final claim is that after the court ruled on defendant?s motion, defendant
engaged in dilatory tactics designed to prejudice plaintiff?s right to file a motion for
reconsideration and to file an appeal as of right. Appellate review is generally limited to issues
actually decided by the trial court. Allen v Keating, 205 Mich App 560, 564-565; 517 NW2d 830
(1994). Because this issue was not raised and addressed below, it has not been preserved for
appellate review. Herald Co, Inc v Ann Arbor Pub Sch, 224 Mich App 266, 278; 568 NW2d 411
(1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette